![]() |
Why does alpa want ffdo
I read that ALPA is fighting for more government funding of FFDO program. This is a waste of limited resources. If you could go back to 9-11 and arm the pilots of the affected aircraft it might have been effective but now it's just most untrained pilots with weapons who will never get a chance to use them. I believe in the program but it should be funded by the pilots otherwise it should go away.
|
Originally Posted by vilcas
(Post 1417307)
I believe in the program but it should be funded by the pilots otherwise it should go away.
|
Vilcas, I assume this is some sort of joke or something? I can't see how any rational person would say that. One thing you said that I agree with - hopefully no FFDO will ever get the "chance" to use their weapon.
|
Ignorance is bliss, isn't it Vilcas... ;)
|
I guess but I was serious I think this program should not be a taxpayer burden. If pilots want to carry weapons then they should foot the bill. There is no need for a weapon in the flight deck. If people tried to take over a airliner today the passengers are more than adequate to take care of the threat. This is like the opposition to the pen knives by the flight attendants, purely emotional.
|
Originally Posted by vilcas
(Post 1417549)
I guess but I was serious I think this program should not be a taxpayer burden. If pilots want to carry weapons then they should foot the bill. There is no need for a weapon in the flight deck. If people tried to take over a airliner today the passengers are more than adequate to take care of the threat. This is like the opposition to the pen knives by the flight attendants, purely emotional.
fbh |
The pre-911 mindset of "let the hijacker do what he wants and it will all turn out ok" vs. "lets rush this guy and take him out no matter what kind of weapon he has, whether or not it's a real threat" is the biggest difference IMO. Spending millions of dollars to train and equip certain people is throwing crap on the wall and hoping that it meets just the right situation, in terms of having an armed crew + the opportunity to use it + a real threat.
|
I'm very much in favor of the FFDO program. In terms of putting armed personnel on commercial aircraft, it's very cost-effective.
I have, however, shot alongside some FFDO's who couldn't hardly put rounds on paper, let along hit anything, and I found that particularly disturbing. The notion that untrained passengers can and will subdue a trained and determined attacker is fantasy. Thus far, notable takedowns of disturbed persons on board various flights have occurred, but in most cases, the persons taken down were cartoonish in nature compared to a truly determined and truly trained (and prepared) assailant. HK works. |
Originally Posted by vilcas
(Post 1417549)
I guess but I was serious I think this program should not be a taxpayer burden. If pilots want to carry weapons then they should foot the bill. There is no need for a weapon in the flight deck. If people tried to take over a airliner today the passengers are more than adequate to take care of the threat. This is like the opposition to the pen knives by the flight attendants, purely emotional.
The FFDO program is Cheap compared to other government programs. |
Originally Posted by vilcas
(Post 1417307)
I believe in the program but it should be funded by the pilots otherwise it should go away.
Originally Posted by vilcas
(Post 1417549)
There is no need for a weapon in the flight deck. If people tried to take over a airliner today the passengers are more than adequate to take care of the threat.
How do you relate the two bolded sentences above? Sort of like - I believe in women having the right to vote, as long as no women are allowed to vote. :rolleyes: |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:17 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands